Posted on 08/12/2005 3:25:54 PM PDT by hang 'em
Who is/was the WORST U.S. PRESIDENT EVER? Carter? Clinton? Make your choice and state your reasons.
You've been drinkin' the liberal Kool-aid?
What you said...
Believe me baddog I wasn't giving you a hard time :) I was heartily agreeing with your sentiments. And emotionally, I happen to think that the succor given to commies like Hiss and Wallace and White is the thing that sticks in my craw most about FDR. I just finished reading Witness by Whitaker Chambers. When he revealed confidentially that there were commies in government to a high FDR official (I think that official was Adolf Berle) nothing whatever came of it. Later when Chambers went public with his accusations (with Nixon leading the charge) Chambers became an enemy of the Truman administration who did all in their power to destroy him.
I was simply pointing out the SC packing scheme in 1939 which FDR tried to pull off because the SC had nixed some of his more egregious New Deal legislation and programs. Against all advice he decided he would expand the SC from the traditional 9 members to something like 16 or so. That way he could have enough of his own people on the court to that it would be a rubber stamp. I think it was the Senate that kept this from happening. So from a constitutional perspective that was huge and it shows that FDR was not all that removed philosophically from his buddy Stalin.
Also the fact that FDR got 4 terms which not even George Washington or anyone before or since took is, to me, outrageous and again goes to the heart of our system of government. An ammendment was passed (22nd??) afterwards to make sure that never happened again.
FDR was lower than whale s**t.
I think in the long run historians will look at the Clinton/Bush presidencies in much the same way they look at the Hoover/FDR presidencies. Hoover's passivity toward developing economic problems is blamed for the stock market crash and the great depression, and FDR, whether you agree with what he did or not, did actually take on the problems and try to do something about them.
Similarly Clinton chose to react to growing terrorism in a very passive and ultimately ineffectual manner, which lead to 9/11. Even those who disagree with Bush's handling of the problem have got to admit that he is at least actively trying to do something about it.
America's Founders and Framers of its Constitution left us a legacy of liberty that was unique in the history of all the world, under a President whose Farewell Address warned us of the dangers to liberty should our leaders depart from constitutional principle.
And Jefferson, who authored the statement of principles underlying our Constitution (Declaration of Independence) warned: "This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering...."
Is it possible to identify that significant moment in our nation's history when some influential leader initiated a dangerous "departure from principle" that would become that "precedent" for subsequent steps down the road to oppression and tyranny, and away from what Jefferson's First Inaugural called "the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety"?
If we could identify that leader, could we not wisely call him the "worst" American President?
It seems that all who followed that President, no matter how brilliant or how inept, of what high character or low morality, in concert with their contemporaries in the Legislative and Judicial branches, may have been mere "automatons" who followed the "departure from principle" and hastened the day when some future generation will not enjoy "the blessings of liberty" promised by our Constitution's Preamble.
To identify the principles, one can review the following excerpts from Jefferson's First Inaugural:
"But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans--we are all federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough. But would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm, on the theoretic and visionary fear that this government,e world's best hope, by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest government on earth. I believe it is the only one where every man, at the call of the laws, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
"Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own federal and republican principles, our attachment to our union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow citizens, resulting not from birth but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them including honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter; with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.
". . . it is proper that you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship, with all nations--entangling alliances with none; the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people--a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of the revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority--the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia--our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority;economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected--these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith--the text of civil instruction--the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.
"I repair, then, fellow citizens, to the post you have assigned me. With experience enough in subordinate offices to have seen the difficulties of this, the greatest of all, I have learned to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man to retire from this station with the reputation and the favor which bring him into it. Without pretensions to that high confidence reposed in our first and great revolutionary character, whose preeminent services had entitled him to the first place in his country's love, and destined for him the fairest page in the volume of faithful history, I ask so much confidence only as may give firmness and effect to the legal administration of your affairs. I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional; and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts. The approbation implied by your suffrage is a consolation to me for the past; and my future solicitude will be to retain the good opinion of those who have bestowed it in advance, to conciliate that of others by doing them all the good in my power, and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom of all.
"Relying, then, on the patronage of your good will, I advance with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever you become sensible how much better choice it is in your power to make. And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe, lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity."
Italics and underlining added for emphasis.
There might be something to what you say. I don't know that much about Hoover - I know the popular mythology is that he fidlled while Rome burned and FDR rode in on his white horse and saved the day. But I don't indpendently know that to be true. What I do know is that there is good evidence to support the thesis that the New Deal did nothing to ameliorate the depression - 1939 was worse than 1932. It wasn't until WWII that things started moving again. So, if the myth that the New Deal got us out of the depression is just that, a myth, then perhaps there is at least a chance that Hoover is being unfairly maligned. Certainly today's RATs love comparing any repub president to Hoover just as they continue to idolize FDR.
I do concede that even given all that you may have a point - it just goes against my grain to say anything positive about FDR since he was a Stalin loving conniving liar, that changed the US from a country with a fairly limited federal government, to a country where the federal government has something to say about every aspect of American life.
first guess was right. I was responding to an assertion that Marx was a free trader in the classic sense.
Precisely what I was saying, Marx endorsed free trade because he saw it as a destructive force against capitalism. I don't believe in Marx's theories and don't buy his premise. I see free trade as the only legitimate form of trade. Protectionism leads to stagnation, artificially high prices, low productivity, and technological staleness. No competition, no innovation.
Based on your standard, one could make a pretty good case for Jefferson being the worst. By allowing Marbury v. Madison to establish the principle of judicial review, he set the stage for all further legislation by judicial fiat.
Klintoon and Karter
FDR was the worst ever. He started us on the downhill path to socialism and we have followed that path for over 70 years. His method was to make us all dependent on government and it has exceeded all of his expectations for certain. We are now, as a nation, slaves to government. Happy days are here again.
x, by your standards of the effect of one president upon the next (Carter to Reagan), or others, stacytec is on to something here with Nixon: deserved or not, the legacy of Watergate bites and empowers the wrong people yet today.
I don't know many of the most conservative of Republicans who would deny the overall corruption of HardingAs with Nixon, Harding's legacy of corruption empowered democrats. New Dealers easily blamed all problems upon Harding.
And, as with Nixon, Harding's good must be upheld. In Harding's case, he unwound the worst of Wilson's horrid wartime economic regime.
I could go on. Carter did more damage to America in a scant 4 years than any other president during that time. Furthermore, his policies are still killing America today and its 25 years later.
- There is no reasonable argument that Smoot-Hawley caused the Depression. However, it most certainly worsened the existing economic crunch. In automobiles alone the drop in trade that directly followed the new tariff as a result of reciprocal restrictions on U.S. automobile exports knocked a desperately needed 10-15% off sales. Even a 10% drop threw many workers (and workers in suppliers) into unemployment, among bad effects.
- No matter how many times the Republicans of the McKinley-TR-Taft period said it, Cleveland's 1894 tariff reduction in no way caused the Panic of 1893. The Panic had already started, and a good case is made that the reductions actually assisted in the recovery. The Panic was the result of the then severe business cycle, the Silver Act, and the McKinley tariff, whose enactment was specifically designed to reduce government revenue by limiting imports. (Republicans spent off the existing surfeit by giving it away to Civil War vets... a policy that was most damaging to good government, and created a huge political liability that burdened subsequent Republican presidents.)
- Protection works and it doesn't work. The question is balance. The McKinley (1898), Taft, Wilson (1913), and Harding tariffs were all effective, and the economy advanced despite them as much as because of them.
- Btw, be careful in criticising Wilson's entry to WWI while upholding TR, who pushed Wilson into it. Whatever the merits of U.S. involvement, the worst of the episode came in Wilson's egotistical and vapid aftermath, especially his insistence upon continued government intervention in the economy. Note also that Wilson's wartime economy was the progressive, a.k.a. Bull Moose, ideal. FDR used it as a model.
- Another problem I have with TR is his strategy to drive off socialism by adopting part of it. (FDR used the same rationale). That's not only bad leadership it's horrid public policy, akin to appeasement (_____ insert your own analogy here). I see no evidence that McKinley wouldn't have adopted many -- not all -- of the Roosevelt "reforms," although it is certain that McKinley would never have employed the TR rhetoric which only led to a demand for more and more extreme reform. TR had no clue about managing an economy. He viewed the tariff solely as a political instrument. His demands for inheritance and income taxes, too, were politically driven, and in utter ignorance of their economic impact. The only thing he really understood about the income tax was its empowerment of the national government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.